ATP written expiration

[avbug]

I've been given false info by the feds before and I'm just afraid of going to simuflite and finding out that it's not valid.

Just take the test again, for crying out loud. It's not that big a deal. Have a fresh copy, and you don't have to worry about who says what, or who allows what.

So far as "false info by the feds," that wouldn't happen to have been at the FSDO level, would it?

The FSDO level isn't authorized to interpret regulation, and whatever you get from the FSDO isn't worth more than an opinion from the man on the street. It's not defensible either, even if you get it in writing. In other words, if you base your actions on what you've received from the FSDO and it's wrong, you can't use that as a defense later...because the FSDO doesn't have the authorization to interpret the regulation for you.

There are three sources for an understanding of the regulation, in order:

Preambles to the Federal Register
The Code of Federal Regulations (the "FAR's")
Office of Chief Counsel legal interpretations

Additional supporting insight is case law regarding a given matter which, while setting precedent, does not carry the weight of the above three, or actually interpret the regulation.

 

[A Squared]

So far as "false info by the feds," that wouldn't happen to have been at the FSDO level, would it?

The FSDO level isn't authorized to interpret regulation, and whatever you get from the FSDO isn't worth more than an opinion from the man on the street. It's not defensible either, even if you get it in writing. In other words, if you base your actions on what you've received from the FSDO and it's wrong, you can't use that as a defense later...because the FSDO doesn't have the authorization to interpret the regulation for you.

There are three sources for an understanding of the regulation, in order:

Preambles to the Federal Register
The Code of Federal Regulations (the "FAR's")
Office of Chief Counsel legal interpretations

Good comments, Avbug, and I agree 100%. I've beat that same drum myself. I should clarify what I meant, when referring to inspectors/DEs "interpreting" as it might appear that what I've said ids at odds with that.

As a practical matter, right or wrong, it does happen. In the case at hand, when faced with an expired ATP result on checkride day and no further guidance from official sources, the question becomes, what am I going to do, today. Faced with that situation, different examiners are going to do different things. Some might say yes, some might say no. If hte answer is yes, and hte new certificate is issued, to a certain extent, it becomes fait acompli. You have the certificate. That's not to say it's completely a done deal. Certainly, if the examiner was seriously at odds with official FAA policy, the FAA could rescind the certificate. It has happened, but is it likely in a case like this. I suspect not.

BUt, I do agree, from a legal standpoint, an interpretaion from an inspector or the FSDO is worth exactly zero.

Additional supporting insight is case law regarding a given matter which, while setting precedent, does not carry the weight of the above three, or actually interpret the regulation.

True, but, case law is a positive indication of how the FAA does, in practice, enforce regulations, and it is also a very good indication of whther that interpretation will stand what passes for review in Administrative law. As such, it has a great deal of value.

 

[BGSkyGuy]

When you say "examiner" do you mean a designee or an FAA inspector?

If it's an Examiner Designee, ie: not an FAA employee, ask him about this, it's from Order 8710.3E, Designated Pilot and Flight Engineer Examiners' Handbook, in other words, it's his instruction manual. The excerpt below is from Chapter 11, Section 1, subsection 2:




If he's a Fed, ask him to refer to this, its from Order 8900.1 which is the FAA inspector's instruction manual. THis excerpt is from Volume 5, Chapter 2, Section 18, which is instructions for conducting an ATP checkride under Part 61






So, in either case, whether he's a fed or a designee, his manual makes it quite clear that there are proivisions for using an expired knowledge exam (even under part 61)

So if he says somone can't use an expired exam result, period. He is wrong. Period.

However, in your specific case, it still (in my opinion) hinges on; "......... qualification training program that is appropriate to the certificate and rating sought." And how "apropriate to the certificate" is interpreted. The most restrictive interpretation is that it means a qualification training program for PIC in an operation which requires an ATP certificate. You may find inspecors who are willing to interpret it less stringently.


It might be less stressful in the long run to bang out the ATP written again, then you *know* you're not at the mercy of someone who may or may not see things the way you want.

I'm starting to think the same. Just retake it and be done. I don't have a problem doing that but why should I blow the money on the book and the test for a second time if I don't have too? I had a great score on the first one. It was a Designated Examiner who I asked about this. The westwind only has 8 pax seats so that won't cut it. Just out of curiosity, what if our op specs required any PIC on the WW to be an ATP? Would that cover it? I know I'm reaching here but what the hell.

 

[Boch]

So I guess you gave up on having jeff do it.

 

[Seadogrun]

How does 135.4 play in to this:

135.4 Applicability of rules for eligible on-demand operations.
(a) An “eligible on-demand operation” is an on-demand operation conducted under this part that meets the following requirements:
(1) Two-pilot crew. The flightcrew must consist of at least two qualified pilots employed or contracted by the certificate holder.
(2) Flight crew experience. The crewmembers must have met the applicable requirements of part 61 of this chapter and have the following experience and ratings:
(i) Total flight time for all pilots:
(A) Pilot in command—A minimum of 1,500 hours.
(B) Second in command—A minimum of 500 hours.
(ii) For multi-engine turbine-powered fixed-wing and powered-lift aircraft, the following FAA certification and ratings requirements:
(A) Pilot in command—Airline transport pilot and applicable type ratings.
(B) Second in command—Commercial pilot and instrument ratings.
(iii) For all other aircraft, the following FAA certification and rating requirements:
(A) Pilot in command—Commercial pilot and instrument ratings.
(B) Second in command—Commercial pilot and instrument ratings.

 

[Andy Neill]

How does 135.4 play in to this:

As I said in post #3:
(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section, an applicant for an airline transport pilot certificate or an additional rating to an airline transport certificate may take the practical test for that certificate or rating with an expired knowledge test report, provided that the applicant:
(1) Is employed as a flight crewmember by a certificate holder under part 121, 125, or 135 of this chapter at the time of the practical test and has satisfactorily accomplished that operator's approved--
(i) Pilot in command aircraft qualification training program that is appropriate to the certificate and rating sought; and
(ii) Qualification training requirements appropriate to the certificate and rating sought; or.....

If you are employed as a flight crewmember under part 135 AND have completed that operator's approved PIC qualification appropriate to the rating sought AND completed the operator's approved qualification training appropriate to the rating sought, your ATP written may be expired and still take the practical.